Emmanuel Cecchet <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> True, but the problem is that the tuple might still be live to (some
>> snapshots in) that transaction, so we can't inject a duplicate tuple
>> without risking confusing it. In this particular case that isn't an
>> issue because the transaction is done executing, but the tqual.c
>> rules don't know that.
> Please excuse my ignorance. I am not sure to get how the tuple could
> still be live to some snapshots after the transaction has prepared.
Well, it couldn't be because there are no snapshots in that transaction
anymore. The problem is that the *other* transaction doesn't have a
good way to know that. It just sees an open transaction with
conflicting unique-index changes.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
